Post navigation

The US House of Representatives on Wednesday voted down a bid to stop telecommunications companies from demanding Facebook logins from prospective job applicants.

The proposal [PDF], titled “Mind Your Own Business on Passwords,” came from Rep. Ed Perlmutter, a Colorado Democrat, as the House debated over an act that aims to reform the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Perlmutter proposed that the bill be sent back to committee amended with a paragraph allowing the FCC to bar telecoms from requiring the logins.

"No American should have to provide their confidential personal passwords as a condition of employment. Both users of social media and those who correspond share the expectation of privacy in their personal communications."

Many have shared his sentiment, particularly during the week following several reports of companies and government agencies who request Facebook login so that interviewers can have a look-see at anything a job applicant has marked private.

As the Associated Press noted, the legality of the practice is dubious indeed. Proposed legislation in Illinois and Maryland would forbid public agencies from asking for social network access.

Given that requiring Facebook logins of job applicants had nothing to do with the issue at hand, the House’s refusal to amend the FCC reform bill this week does nothing to clear up the question of legality.

As McCullagh wrote, all Perlmutter had to do was suggest an amendment, not send the whole thing back to committee.

At any rate, McCullagh notes, it’s not companies regulated by the FCC that are being profiled as Facebook login requesters. Rather, the anecdotes regarding login demanders have mostly sprung from the actions of law enforcement agencies, which aren’t regulated by the FCC and wouldn’t be affected by the bill.

CBS News quoted Rep. Greg Walden, the Oregon Republican who chairs a communications and technology subcommittee, agreed with Perlmutter that “it’s awful” for employers to feel free to demand passwords and then “go snooping around.”

The problem is, Perlmutter’s amendment wouldn’t have protected anybody, Walden said during the floor debate:

"Your amendment doesn't protect them. It doesn't do that. Actually, what this amendment does is say that all of the reforms that we are trying to put in place at the Federal Communications Commission, in order to have them have an open and transparent process where they are required to publish their rules in advance so that you can see what they're proposing, would basically be shoved aside. They could do whatever they wanted on privacy if they wanted to, and you wouldn't know it until they published their text afterward. There is no protection here."

Perlmutter’s delaying tactic says more about Democrats’ opposition to the Republican-backed bill to reform the FCC than it does about a sincere desire to protect Facebook users’ privacy.

The House rejected Perlmutter’s amendment by a vote of 184 to 236. The FCC reform measure itself was approved by a vote of 247 to 174. It has not yet been approved by the Senate.

The White House released a statement [PDF] on Monday claiming that the GOP bill would prevent the FCC from exercising “its statutory duty to protect the public interest.”

This is not about privacy. This is a sideshow, a scuffle between the parties.

The question of privacy deserves to be more than a spurious footnote used to jam the gears of an unrelated bill. Let’s hope that the proposed legislation in Illinois and Maryland does the job by actually focusing on the issue at hand.

I think if you simply point out to the prospective employer that the account contains personal family-only photographs of your children that they will not want to risk any insinuation that that is the reason they wish to access your account. You could even insist that anyone who wishes to access this information shows YOU a criminal records background check first so you know they aren't just some identity thief or worse.

Very good point. The applicant would essentially be handing over his/her password to a complete stranger, who could potentially be collecting dodgy pictures of kids, committing identity theft, or whatever cyber-naughtiness. Just saying.

What this is really about is that Republicans don't want the FCC or anyone else to be able to put checks on big business at all. This kind of silly attitude that they have needs to end for the good of everyone!

This is an uncalled for attack on republicans. Who said that republicans were even for or against this tactic? I am a business owner myself, and I bet that if I brought up this issue in a chamber or BNI meeting an overwhelming majority of the business owners there would be appalled by this tactic. The only way problems will ever get solved is by constructive discussion not by casting blame or name-calling.

Yeah, right…like the Democrats are the great defenders of personal liberty. Gimmee a break.

"…for the good of everyone" (aka "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one") is precisely the mentality by which both parties—Democans and Republicrats alike—have persistently and increasingly trashed individual freedoms in the U.S., and by which politicians elsewhere in the world have accomplished the same nefarious end.

While you stand on your self-righteous sanctimony and fuel more pointless partisan bickering, EVERYONE's freedom is irrevocably being eroded via the kind of attitude your post represents. The laws you presume will necessarily "put checks on big business" already exist by the ton, and they haven't stemmed the corruption. Who do you think pays the big bux to get these political clowns elected?

So, nice try, but Lisa's article nails it. This is just a case of routine political gamesmanship. Both sides play that game, and meanwhile the issue of privacy that the article addresses is neatly sidestepped by our elected delinquents.

I got 1 question. If it's supposed to be personal, why are you posting it on a website?

But Walden is an idiot, and shows you his look on Democracy, and what they are attempting to do with the FCC reform, even though he attempts to act neutral.

They want all your information open, because soon they will tell you where to go, what to eat, what to buy, and what your allowed to think. Anyone outside thier beliefs will receive unfitting concequences, as they take away your freedom of choice. These people just all need removed from office. Elect people who will work for the people, not work for the money and their own personal gain.

As Walden states, he is worried about what you do, because he won't know about what you do or think, until it's too late for him or his team to create a half decent response.

I am not surprised at all. It proves that there are two entities in USA and there is no dialogue line between them. One are the politicians, which include the representatives in the House and the senators. The other are the people (We, the people) who are completely ignored by the first. The gap between the first and the second is bigger than the world. I don't know how long it is going to stay this way, but the second are giving signals of tiredness.

Employers are not permitted to ask details like age. While many fields on Facebook are optional, birthdate is not. A Facebook profile would also be likely to answer a number of other questions employers are prohibited from asking, like marital status, religion, or whether you're pregnant.

You have every right to decline based on these grounds alone. "I'm sorry, but my Facebook profile answers questions you're not allowed to ask."

It would be great if we stopped layering laws on top of laws that already address these issues. . .

The applicant should just point out that he or she will never in any circumstances break an agreement, such as the undertaking given to Facebook not to disclose one's password to anyone else.
Any decent employer would prefer to employ someone of such integrity.
Do Republicans seek to make such privacy agreements null and void?

Lack of choice. Do you think if McDonald's mandated it, they'd suddenly find themselves unstaffed? People take much worse shit than this from employers, because employees have the freedom to eat shit or starve.

Good, honest unions would be an answer to this, had not politicians spent so much effort crippling them in recent decades. Tho some unions themselves had corruption problems, they're the only help ordinary people have. Because ordinary people aren't a lobby group, and there's little money in standing up for them.

Another point to consider is it is not just your profile they have access to. Anything you have access to on your friends account is now available to them. By giving them access to your account you are betraying your friends trust. Perhaps a compromise would be to friend the employer for a short time.

Yes, most of the companies that CURRENTLY ask for social networking login & password information are law enforcement agencies.
In one of the articles, a guard who had been away from his job due to a medical leave was asked to provide his password & login information in his re-entry interview.He offered to login to his account for his employer.Their response was…"No,we NEED your login & password ourself." WHY?What did they plan to do with his account later on ?
I would think that someone in law enforcement would know the meaning of private information,but it appears that the prison system has no concept of that where their guards are concerned.If this had been a prisoner instead of a guard,I think that congress would have responded differently & it wouldn't have mattered whether the proposal had been made to be attached to the FCC bill or written as a seperate bill.

If those agencies were entitled to access that information, they'd be able to anyway. If the login screen's such an obstacle to that, they're not authorised, entitled or have a legitimate need to know the information. Simple as.

It is against Facebook user agreement and just good security practice to not give your password to others- period. In the day of cyber security issues, breaches, etc., why any employer would want a password is beside me? A tremendous liability in addition to morally wrong for anyone to ask for someone else's password.
Jeff S.

How about saying you don't have a FB account & just deactivate the account while you go thru the motions & change the profile pic for a few months afterwards, chance are there are about 60+ people with your same name. Let them go thru the hassle, to hell with it. Simple as that.

There is NO ONE on Facebook with the same name as me. There is no one else in the WORLD with my name.

I have a very rare last name. My first name doesn’t fit into my cultural background, and it is also spelled in a rarer manner, even for the language it comes from. With such a combination, I’m pretty easy to identify.

By failing to create laws against this blatant invasion of privacy, isn’t the US then in direct violation of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Article 12 states, “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence… Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference…”

Before I ever hand over any login or password I would require a written statement (in duplicate) from the employer stating in detail what that information will be used for.That way I would have what amounts to a legal contract to use if they decide to do such things as delete my account or change my password/s.

My husband just got fired today for having ICP and other music on his personal fb page. A employee complained to corporate about it. They stated they don't want that image representing the company. He has worked there for 4 yrs. never have missed one day of work, always went in when someone called in, no criminal record (not even a speeding ticket).